Cyfrowa Etnografia

c3289956e1877e7dfa02972d1cf39187.pdf

Media

Part of To See the World/ Polska Sztuka Ludowa - Konteksty 2014 Special Issue

extracted text

WI ESŁAW SZPILKA

To See the World.
Ethnography vis a vis
Film and Mass Culture

T

he FIFA World Cup is watched by millions of
people all over the world. Concerts of pop stars
attract tens of thousands of fans worldwide.
Rambo entertained a mass audience in China, while
the Chinese actor Bruce Lee became a major film icon
in Europe and America. Jeans, Coca Cola, rock music
think nothing of borders and are everywhere. Bond or
Madonna are just two examples of well-known figures
popular on a scale unimaginable in the world of serio­
us high art. Naturally, this is the field of mass culture,
one of the most characteristically modern phenomena
analysed so often and from so many angles that, to
quote Stefan Morawski, it is impossible to recount even
the most important reasoning.1
I believe that ethnography too can add to this vast
group an interesting image of mass culture. As befits its
nature ethnographic description will not be tempted
to imitate or opt for comprehensive portrayal. Rather,
it will aim at emphasising the most crucial points for
a caricature and not a portrait, to use a metaphor de­
vised by Ludwik Stomma. This is why an ethnographer
should focus on the phenomenon itself, attempting to
find the specific organising principle decisive for its
external shape. Only after the main narrative threads
of the discussed phenomenon are revealed along with
a catalogue of protagonists and the qualities attributed
to them that we can begin contemplating their sense
and meaning. This is when one can transcend the in­
terpreted phenomenon towards historical reality and
refer to man’s existential problems. Even then, how­
ever, it is best to adopt a distinct perspective. After all,
we are examining mass culture from the inside by fol­
lowing its rules and truth. Such a description opposes
the traditional perception of cultural phenomena that,
to cite Ricoeur, falls victim to three illusions - the il­
lusion of the source, the creator and the audience.2
Now, a quick look at what these illusions consist of.
It is assumed that the meaning of a phenomenon
can be comprehended by referring to the reality in
which it was created, to its social, political and aes­
thetic determinants. Another type of genetic inter­
348

pretation involves linking the subject with its author.
Consequently, his biography, plans and intentions are
supposed to provide the foundation of comprehen­
sion. A phenomenon may be also explained by draw­
ing attention to the audience. In this case it is not the
cause but the effect that is the most important factor
for formulating final conclusions. Cause-and-effect
explanations are the most frequent method of treating
mass culture.
I would like to use several standard examples to
show how the three illusions hidden in the foundation
of these popular strategies exert a decisive influence on
the perception and assessment of mass culture. Only
in this light will it be possible to evaluate the chance
offered to ethnographic description, an opportunity
inspired by an awareness of the traps that sociologists
and art historians collectively fall into.
The works of Marshall McLuhan are an extreme
but thus an instructive example of explanation via
sources.3 McLuhan believed that to understand mass
culture is to comprehend the meaning of electronic
mass communication media since their emergence is
to lead to a new quality of civilization. A global elec­
tronic village has replaced the galaxy of Gutenberg.
The change is radical because it affects not only media
but de facto has an even larger impact on the transmit­
ted content. According to McLuhan the method of
transmission becomes synonymous with its content hence his classification of hot and cool media. Regard­
less of its content the meaning of a message is already
determined by the way it is transmitted. This would
mean that Batman is closer to Bergman’s Wild Strawberries than to the comic book it was based on just
because it is a motion picture.
Defending this conviction poses a difficult chal­
lenge. One can legitimately claim that the carrier is
one of the factors shaping information. The thesis
proposed by the Canadian philosopher, however,
is certainly stronger by arguing that what has been
manifested depends fundamentally on the media car­
rying the information. If this were actually true then
it would be impossible to explain evident differences
observed within the reality created by the same media.
The division into mass and high culture would have to
be considered absurd. After all, mass culture obviously
exists above the divisions discussed by McLuhan. Fig­
ures characteristic for its world move freely from the
movies to comic books, from literature to films, and
exist simultaneously on the stage and in the press. To
put it differently, Donald Duck is defined by a specific
reality of mass imagination that must be respected by
authors using all techniques. This is why Batman, Dick
Tracy - contemporary films based on classic comic
books - render old plots so faithfully, adhere to char­
acter profiles, and even try to evoke the atmosphere
of the drawings.

Wiesław Szpilka • TO SEE THE WORLD. ETHNOGRAPHY ViS A ViS FILM AND MASS CULTURE

Civilisational transformations - and mass media
changes undoubtedly belong to this group - say little
about the essence of mass culture. After all, an analy­
sis of the mass media does not tell us why the products
of American dream factories are watched all over the
world contrary to their Soviet counterparts. Moreo­
ver, it will not explain the sources of the remarkable
popularity of archaic forms, e.g. fables, or of charac­
ters from a totally different world, such as demons,
ghosts, sorcerers and angels. Naturally, the views of
the electronic village prophet are an extreme example
of thinking in which the base (source) decides about
the superstructure. It is impossible to uphold a convic­
tion about a sole causative reason setting into motion
an entire structure. Nevertheless, a more subtle form
of this particular style of thinking remains highly wide­
spread.
The number of factors influencing the reality from
which mass culture emerged tends to grow. Urbanisa­
tion, industrialisation, mass education - these are the
forces that together with the new media gave rise to
the phenomenon in question.4 It is possible to present
these processes in numbers and to express them in
tables and charts, thus rendering them objectively
perceptible and a better analysis foundation than the
intuitive belief that print leads to a more fragmentary
world perception and TV to a comprehensive grasp.
The fact that the number of TV sets has increased
considerably does not explain why Dynasty won a
mass audience and Seventeen Moments of Spring did
not. The expanding opportunity to transmit all types
of contents does not account for the universal accept­
ance of some and the slender approval of others.
Why then do Indiana Jones, Madonna, soccer,
Stephen King novels, or images of attractive but­
tocks and breasts get the upper hand, and not films by
Tarkovsky, avant-garde music and scientific specula­
tions? After all, the civilisational frames accompany­
ing their creation are identical, and the transmission
media - similar. And yet two opposite phenomena
- mass and high culture - emerge on the very same
ground. Surprisingly, while origin is supposed to en­
tirely determine the former it does not seem to have a
larger impact on the latter. Genetic explanations are
not helpful in solving this mystery. An interpretation
of mass culture based on its sources is not particularly
productive. It shows why cultural contents can spread
rapidly and widely but is incapable of pointing out the
reasons why some take advantage of this opportunity
while others fail to do so.
The explicit insufficiency of the above option calls
for a backing. Therefore, the focus switches from
sources to the audience. From the very beginning
critical opinions relating to mass culture have been
accompanied by an illusion pertaining to the audi­
ence, the conviction that the nature of mass culture

depends on the people who consume it. The reflec­
tions of Jose Ortega y Gasset, cited up to this day, are
a classic expression of this concept.5 Gasset outlined a
highly determined picture of the mass-man:
The mass is the average man (■ ■ ■ ). The characteristic
of the hour is that the commonplace mind, knowing itself
to be commonplace, has the assurance to proclaim the
rights of the commonplace and to impose them wherever
it will. (...) This leads us to note down in our psycho­
logical chart of the mass-man of to-day two fundamental
traits: the free expansion of his vital desires, and therefore,
of his personality; and his radical ingratitude towards what
has made possible the ease of his existence. These traits
together make up the well-known psychology of the spoilt
child. (...) That man is intellectually of the mass who in
face of any problem is satisfied with thinking the first thing
he finds in his head. (...) For the basic texture of their
soul is wrought of hermetism and indocility; they are from
birth deficient in the faculty of giving attention to what is
outside themselves, be it fact or person. They will wish to
follow someone, and they will be unable. They will want
to listen, and will discover they are deaf. (...) Hence we
apply the term mass to this kind of man —not because of
his multitude as because of his inertia.6
Primitive, lacking taste and morality, seeking ex­
clusively consumption and amusement, desiring pow­
er but avoiding all types of responsibility, opposed to
everything autonomous and different, the mass-man,
whom the Spanish philosopher additionally linked
with communism and fascism, poses a threat to all au­
thentic values.7
Works by Ortega y Gasset do not consider the
cultural environment of the mass-man but shift their
focus from civilisational transformations straight to
mental traits. And yet a definition of a representative
of the masses also indirectly describes his culture. The
principles of the homogenization of contents and the
lowest common denominator apply only when it is
possible to define the basic recipient. After all, it is he
who sets the level of images aimed at mass imagina­
tion. Mass culture envisaged as the realisation of the
needs of the average man is the key to understanding
the phenomenon. Take a look at some examples.
Just as its name suggests mass culture is aimed at the
masses of average consumers, everymen devoid of aesthetic
culture or possessing it to a slight degree. (...) Mass culture
is based on already worn out aesthetic and non-aesthetic
stereotypes, on epigonic consciousness so obvious in popu­
lar belief that the discussed stereotypes seem to be eternal.
(...) [Dominated by] mass-produced conventional com­
monplace values, with a definite aesthetic aura replaced
by the climate of banality, something to be used and used
up quickly, and no deliberate distinction; on the contrary,
differences between an art product and everyday items are
obliterated. On the one hand, appreciation for individual­
ity, uniqueness, talent, genius, innovation, and originality,

349

Wiesław Szpilka • TO SEE THE WORLD. ETHNOGRAPHY ViS A ViS FILM AND MASS CULTURE

together with the breaking of conventions and the question­
ing of stereotypes at the very least, and on the other hand,
a longing for the stereotypical and the conventional; the
epigonic approach does not offend and talent is not sought
after contrary to accessibility, i.e. communicative contents
and old, reliable communication forms.8
Mediocre people strive for mediocrity. This equa­
tion leaves no place for doubt. By opposing uniqueness
the mass scale creates, on the one hand, horror of the
“terrible bourgeois” and on the other hand - kitsch in
art, banality and stereotypes in thinking, an apothe­
osis of passivity and consumption. This “aristocratic”
perception is at its very basis entangled in assumptions
that in advance determine description and assess­
ment. There is no proof to support the view claiming
that the original and the extraordinary are superior in
any way to the common and the average. Ethnography
shows that in “cold” or folk-type cultures we encoun­
ter a completely opposite situation. Well-known and
traditional objects and behaviour are wise, beautiful,
good, and desirable. Even in high European culture
the extraordinary career of originality did not begin
until Romanticism. Taking as granted the historical
conviction that elitist means high, valuable, and sig­
nificant, while commonplace is synonymous with low,
banal, and degraded is to say that mass culture does
not exist as a characteristic and original phenomenon.
It is affected by special ethnocentrism, i.e. a process
of measuring with reference standards treated as if
they were universal and absolute. Cultures considered
primitive were once perceived as first stages along a
path leading to the culture of the West, but now mass
culture is recognized as the latter’s infantile phase.
The world of the elites is obviously supposed to be im­
mersed in a strong, exemplary emanation of Western
culture.
The time and space proximity of mass and high cul­
ture probably generates the method used to describe
pop concerts, action films, or sports events. It consists
of psychological identification and produces many at­
tributes reflecting emotional states, e.g. pleasant, easy,
carefree, or obvious. It may be also the reason for the
lack of interest in contents creating this “little world”.
They seem to be familiar and similar to a reproduction
or an inferior copy do not require reflection.
Without granting mass culture a separate manner
of existence we have to assume that quantitative and
not qualitative differences are the only thing separat­
ing a researcher from a participant. Both experience
in a similar way, albeit some less and others more con­
sciously. By perceiving in the same way, though more
acutely and extensively, it is possible to formulate
binding opinions and define what is banal and childish
and what is noble and creative. The imperfection of
this manner of interpreting is perhaps most obvious
upon the example of Ortega y Gasset’s predictions of
350

the future of societies dominated by mass culture. His
prophesies of an imminent collapse turned out to be an
obvious mistake in the light of the progressing massscale Americanization of the world. Ortega y Gasset
also missed the mark when linking mass culture with
fascism and communism. After all, democracy is at its
strongest in a reality dominated by the blue jeans-style
culture, whereas the worst examples of tyranny and
barbarity are encountered wherever elites shaped the
framework of life.
The history of film is yet another proof of misun­
derstandings caused by the recipient illusion.8 A t its
onset, film was plebeian, fairground entertainment
created with the masses in mind. The same pictures
that used to universally entertain and move, such as
those with Chaplin, are now treated as significant ar­
tistic achievements. This career of elements creating
Cosmos with Bond in the coat of arms is no longer
unusual. Post-modern art readily applies quotes, tech­
niques, and patterns derived from lowbrow culture. A
vivid example of succumbing to illusions are attempts
made by art historians maintaining that a work whose
form and content are of a decisively mass origin, but
which was created by a renowned artist and circulates
within high art, is substantially different than the basis
from which it originated. The reason supposedly lies in
the awareness of the author and the audience as well
as in the distance, irony, etc. assumed by both parties.
The conviction that in order to understand a work of
art it is more important to define the experiences of a
concrete, historical audience than to analyse the work
itself is embedded in precisely such beliefs. In this psy­
chological reception the analysed phenomenon does
not exist objectively but depends on the readers even
though they continue to change and elapse while it
continues to persist in the same shape. In other words,
the recipient’s error inclines to absolutize a single per­
ception and opinion. In mass culture such an illusion
must be additionally intensified because it is difficult
to define its consumers. This remarkably heterogene­
ous milieu includes representatives of the most diverse
cultures, age groups, and professions, the rich and the
poor, the educated and the illiterate. Mass culture is
their only common denominator, and the sole quality
that we can attribute to them definitely is that they are
numerous, a mass. If these designations are not treat­
ed from the vantage point of evaluation - by accepting
assumptions determining a description but certainly
not arising from it - but from the point of view of de­
scription then the fact that Batman was watched by
millions and The Sacrifice by thousands will say noth­
ing about their value and significance. Meanwhile, the
view claiming that popularity is connected with shal­
lowness and that the nutriment of the common man is
bland says more about the image of the reality of those
making such assumptions than about the phenomena

Wiesław Szpilka • TO SEE THE WORLD. ETHNOGRAPHY ViS A ViS FILM AND MASS CULTURE

in the centre of their attention. In this instance, mass
culture becomes a pretext to lecture on which values
are important and which judgments are true, and is
supposed to conceal confessions.
The author’s illusion stays closely connected to the
observation made via the audience. It was particularly
favoured by critics of the Western consumption life­
style and designers of the socialist version of mass cul­
ture.9 The belief that a text says what its author in­
tended it to say constitutes the centre of this illusion.
It is the author’s intention that is supposed to decide
about the meaning of a given work. If he knows how
to win over the audience then he is also able to im­
pose his views, assessments, and perception of reality.
Such reasoning leads towards treating mass culture as
a great tool of manipulation, a subtle device invisible
for those that succumb to it. The American sociologist
H.I. Schiller wrote in his symptomatically titled Mind
Managers: For manipulation to be most effective, evidence
of its presence should be non-existent. When the manipu­
lated believe things are the way they are naturally and in­
evitably, manipulation is successful. In short, manipulation
requires a false reality that is a continuous denial of its
existence.10
According to Schiller, the qualities that make it
possible to impose this false vision include lack of
criticism, excessive value assigned to consumption,
and belief in unchanging human nature.11 All this
corresponds well with the already discussed qualities
of the average man, a consumption-starved citizen of
a country dominated by poverty, violence, mawkish­
ness, pandemonium, and puerile ditties. We should
not blame, therefore, viewers of films made by Walt
Disney Productions and readers of National Geograph­
ic (examples analysed by Schiller12), originating from
precisely these circles, for not being able to perceive
in such products American imperialism and activities
consolidating the binding status quo. The inclination
of the mass-man to succumb to manipulation is rein­
forced by the fact that certain sources of information
making it possible to assess the actual situation belong
to scarce elites distributing only certain beneficial im­
ages and not allowing others to be revealed. The com­
mercial success of music, literature, and films originat­
ing in protest against existing reality seems to suggest
quite the opposite. Exploiting the dark sides of exist­
ence, highlighting the disadvantages of the system, and
emphasising injustice can be a good way to reach Bat­
man aficionados, punk rockers, and football fans. A f­
ter all, this world is full of figures representing all types
of denominations, professions, convictions and skin
colours, with the most contrasting opinions attributed
to them. Indians can be depicted as good, noble and
brave or terrifyingly despicable and cruel. Stories are
told about good bandits, innocent prostitutes, corrupt
policemen and the horrifying world of business. Natu­
351

rally, tales about the infernal evil forces of violence
and superhuman good law enforcers also exist. In their
perfidiousness the authors of popcorn entertainment
went so far as to clad Arnold Schwarzenegger - a pop
cinema star - in the uniform of a Soviet police officer,
endow him with all suitable attributes, and show him
battling the Soviet mafia together with American law
enforcers in the USA. To make things even more per­
fidious this Soviet police functionary towers above his
American colleagues and unmasks the incompetence
of the local administration of justice. If Donald Duck
is an apology of middle-class America then Red Heat
must be praise of socialism and the USSR. After all, a
search for the author’s hidden intentions can lead to
even such a risky thesis.
If one believes that it is the author who decides
about the meaning of a work then there is nothing
absurd in the conviction that after captivating the
audience he will be capable of incapacitating it, and
thus rendering it subordinate to the forces he serves
or represents. If this were actually the case, if a work
were not autonomous, then becoming commercially
successful would be extremely simple. Familiarity with
the preferences of the mass audience, and such famili­
arity is taken for granted, should make it easy to com­
plete the author - communiqué - audience relation.
However, this is not the case, as sufficiently proven
by the frequent financial bombs of products developed
for the mass audience. The already bygone history of
the so-called socialist version of mass culture may be
an even better example. When an author determines
the message of a text he either surrenders to the audi­
ence’s taste in order to become successful or tries to
oppose the audience and impose his own project. The
former approach supposedly dominated mass culture
in capitalist countries. Those discussing mass culture
in the socialist bloc believed that the latter attitude
could win. After all, when authors do not depend on
the market, mass culture could be applied for the pur­
poses of social pedagogy. Having all the mass media
and accommodating executors at their disposal, the
leading forces in those states hoped to mould the “av­
erage man” any way they wanted. The result was rath­
er mediocre. The success of the Four Tank-men and a
Dog TV series and the adventures of Captain Kloss
did not influence the attitude towards the prevail­
ing system or intensify Polish-Soviet friendship. The
upright characters of party secretaries evoked laugh­
ter, as did the exploits of editor Maj, a Polish James
Bond combating neo-fascists. Competing with its
Western counterpart socialist mass culture was losing
in all fields. Even though various enlightened forces
were demonstrating in myriad ways how degrading it
is to enjoy pop music, action films, fashion or gossip
from the grand monde, consumption of this forbidden
fruit was a favourite pastime from the Elbe to Vladi­

Wiesław Szpilka • TO SEE THE WORLD. ETHNOGRAPHY ViS A ViS FILM AND MASS CULTURE

vostok. It became something more: as Tyrmand and
Bukovsky emphasised in their memoirs, adherence to
mass culture seemed to be a specific form of a battle
for independence and the right to different opinions
and tastes. It is difficult to assume that when writing
their songs the Beatles anticipated that they would be
used in a crusade against communism. It is also rather
unlikely that designers of colourful socks intended to
turn them into a weapon in the battle against a hostile
system. And yet the phenomena in question gained
precisely such connotations. This example demon­
strates how each phenomenon applying the language
of inter-subjectivity and using symbols reveals new and
unexpected meanings in a novel historical and social
context, meanings whose existence the author was
unable to predict. Mass culture pointedly reveals that
the horizon of a work goes infinitely beyond the inten­
tions of its author. This is also one of the reasons why
it does not have to concern itself with boundaries.
While describing how three interpretation illu­
sions determine the shape of a presented image we
obviously did not assume that transformations of
civilisation, audience and author are insignificant
for comprehending the phenomenon. A satisfactory
presentation of mass culture, however, has to focus
on culture itself; otherwise, the discussion merely con­
cerns a new dimension of civilisation, mass audience,
and authors working for its sake. To put it differently,
other issues are being considered. After all, mass cul­
ture is predominantly synonymous with a collection of
texts that have a mass audience. This is its core and
true reality. The texts, recorded in various systems of
signs, should be interpreted and only in the light of the
knowledge contributed by this exegesis can we discuss
the relation between mass culture and mass commu­
nication media, the reasons for this culture’s universal
acceptance and, finally, the traditions inspiring its au­
thors. Critique of illusions is thus the starting point of
an ethnographic description of mass culture, showing
that its specific character does not involve civilisational conditions because they also give rise to opposing
phenomena. Nor is it the mythical “mass-man”, a the­
oretical construct whose pure form has never existed
anywhere. Finally, it is impossible to characterise mass
culture as the product of third-rate authors capable
only of iterating well-worn models and enjoying com­
mercial success by pandering to the public.
Once again: mass culture is a collection of texts that
are, or used to be read on a mass scale. To participate
in it is to read those texts and interpret them while dis­
covering their meaning. Their world is entered only for
the duration of reading and we stay in it only as long as
we read. This is why it does not have any permanent
residents and is inhabited by passers-by.
Childishness, banality, kitsch, and inauthenticity
are some of the numerous designations attributed to
352

the phenomenon of interest to us. The assessments
contained therein seem to be off the mark, but the
intuition they share is unquestionably apt. It empha­
sises the chasm between mass culture and everyday
“normal” life, a dissimilarity caused by a different form
of existence. The extraordinary character of mass cul­
ture must be connected with its complete textuality. If
the conviction maintaining that this is how the phe­
nomenon actually exists is correct then the question
of the structural homology of the texts creating it be­
comes crucial. Does the mass public, a factor making
it possible to notice the existence of the phenomenon
and determining its borders, have its fundamental
counterpart within the texts? What are the mutual re­
lations of the two denominators? These are the ques­
tions that an ethnographic description should answer.
Its point of departure includes books, films, fashion,
and concerts because it knows that this is where the
meaning is hidden.

Endnotes
1 S. Morawski, Na zakręcie od sztuki do po-sztuki, Kraków
1985, p. 89.
2 P Ricoeur, Egzystencja i hermeneutyka, Warszawa 1985,
pp. 334-335.
3 M. McLuhan, Wybór pism, Warszawa 1975.
4 A good example is: A. Kłoskowska, Kultura masowa,
Warszawa 1983.
5 J. Ortega y Gasset, Bunt mas i inne pisma socjologiczne,
Warszawa 1982.
6 Ibidem, p. 7, 13, 63, 69.
7 Ibidem, p. 82.
8 A. Jackiewicz, Moja filmoteka, Warszawa 1989, pp.
32-41.
9 For a review of the Polish authors of such concepts see:
E Kowalski, Parterowy Olimp, Wrocław 1988, pp. 7-60.
10 H.I. Schiller, Sternicy świadomości, Kraków 1976, p. 25.
11 Ibidem, pp. 22-35.
12 Ibidem, pp. 113-143.